Delhi District Court
Shri Satish Kumar vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 20 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
PPA No. 01/2020
CNR No. DLWT01-1003964-2020
In re:
Shri Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Shankar Prasad
R/o Flat No. GF-1, Plot No. J-13/27,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -110027 ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab & Sind Bank
Head Office, 21 Rajendra Place,
New Delhi - 110008
2. Sh. Jaspal Shawney
(Chief Manager & Estate Officer,
Punjab & Sind Bank)
Head Office, 21 Rajendra Place,
New Delhi - 110008 .....Respondents
Date of filing of the appeal : 17.09.2020
Date of arguments advanced
through Video Conferencing : 13.10.2020
Date of judgment : 20.10.2020
Appearances:
Mr. Rajeev Rajan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the respondent no.1 Punjab & Sind Bank
Mr. Umesh Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2 Estate Officer
Page 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the 'PP Act'), whereby the appellant assails the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 under section 3B of the PP Act in case no. 01/20 titled Punjab & Sind Bank v. Satish Kumar, whereby the appellant has been declared to be "unauthorized occupant" with regard to premises viz. Flat No. GF- 1, Plot No. J-13/27, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -110027, and has been directed to vacate the aforesaid premises within seven days of such order failing which the appellant has been ordered to be evicted by use of such force, as may be necessary.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, the appellant is admittedly employed with the bank as its Law Officer and residing in the aforesaid premises with his family members. It would be expedient to reproduce the impugned order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 which reads as under:
BEFORE THE ESTATE OFFICER Punjab & Sind Bank Rajendra Place ; New Delhi Case No. / 2020 In the matter of Punjab & Sind Bank Head Office 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi -110008 ...... Petitioner Vs. Satish Kumar Manager (Law) Page 2 of 10 Punjab & Sind Bank House / Flat No. J-13/27, Ground Floor-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -110027 ...... Respondent Order under sub-section (2) of Section 3 B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
1. By way of present order, I am going to decide the eviction petition filed by the petitioner Punjab & Sind Bank under section
3 B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act 1971 as amended upto date.
2. On perusal of the application and the supporting documents submitted by the Petitioner is revealed that the Respondent, Sh. Satish Kumar being an employee of the petitioner, Punjab & Sind Bank has not vacated the residential lease accommodation of the schedule mentioned House / Flat No. J-13/27, Ground Floor-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
-110027 provided to the respondent by the petitioner for a period of three years with effect from 01.12.2016 to 30.11.2019 at monthly rent of Rs.17000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand) per month despite the fact that the lease agreement expired on 30.11.2019.
3. Petitioner, Punjab & Sind Bank has received various representations including legal notice dated 25.04.2020 from legal heirs of the Superior Lessor to vacate the said premises at the earliest. Petitioner has made continuous written communications to the respondent through letter dated 13.12.2019, 31.12.2019, 15.01.2020, 08.05.2020 and 20.05.2020 reminding him to vacate the scheduled premises.
4. The respondent Satish Kumar failed to vacate the scheduled premise after expiry of the residential lease accommodation on 30.11.2019 an even after receiving notices and written communication dated 13.12.2019, 31.12.2019, 15.01.2020, 08.05.2020 and 20.05.2020 from the petitioner the respondent did not vacate the residential lease accommodation in scheduled premise and hence I am satisfied that the respondent Satish Kumar is an unauthorized occupant of the scheduled premise.
5. Served notice u/s 3 B (1) of the Public Pr3emises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 on 27 th August, 2020 upon respondent Satish Kumar by way of affixing the copy of show cause notice on outer door and conspicuous part of the scheduled premises (residential accommodation) by email and also by whatsapp messenger app to show cause why an order of eviction should not e made within 3 days on or before 29 th August, 2020.
Page 3 of 106. Respondent Satish Kumar failed to show cause within the above mentioned period.
In exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section (2) of Section 3 B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971, I hereby pass an order directing the respondent Shri Satish Kumar and all persons who may be in occupation of the residential accommodation in the scheduled premises or any part thereof to vacate the scheduled premises within 07 days of the date of issue of this order. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above the Respondent Shri Satish Kumar and all other persons concerned shall be evicted from the schedule premises, if need, by the use of such force as may be necessary.
Schedule House / Flat No. J-13/27, Ground Floor-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -110027 Both the parties be informed accordingly.
Date 31.08.2020 Jaspal Shawney Estate Officer Punjab & Sind Bank Rajendra Place, New Delhi GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3. The appellant / tenant assails the aforesaid order inter alia on the grounds that the premises in question has never been notified as "public premises" by respondent no. 1 or the Central Government or the State Government; that the premises in question was never acquired on lease by respondent no. 1 in a lawful manner and no valid lease was executed as between the landlord / rightful owner of the said property and the P&S Bank; that there was no notification in favour of respondent no. 2 to proceed to decide the complaint of the P & S Bank under the PP Act as he has never been notified as its Estate Officer ;
Page 4 of 10that the lease is questionable since though the rental amount was Rs.17,000/- per month, he was allowed accommodation reimbursement of Rs.10,800/- while Rs.6,200/- were being deducted from his salary in an unlawful manner; and that the eviction proceedings are motivated in order to ruin his career by some highly designated officers of the bank and to this end the bank went to the extent of admitting the legal heirs of Mrs. Mohini Sharma; and that he has not been provided fair opportunity to explain his case by the Estate Officer and he could have easily demonstrated before the Estate Officer that his several representations to the bank were not even considered in a lawful manner.
4. Along with the appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 CPC was moved. Since a caveat was filed, a Notice was issued to the respondents and an interim order was passed on 21.09.2020 to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken till the disposal of the present appeal.
5. A Short reply has been filed by respondent no. 2 to the effect that he is protected under section 16 of the PP Act, and therefore, his name be struck from the array of the parties. Along with reply, a copy of the Notification No. 15/1/91-B.O.III dated 31.12.1991 is filed to the effect that vide item no. 13, an officer of the rank of the Assistant General Manager, General Administration P&S Bank, Head office shall exercise all powers and perform duties vested with the Estate Officer under the PP Act.
Page 5 of 106. No reply is filed by respondent no. 1 nor the record of the Estate Officer in original. However, certain documents are placed on record with the regard to acquisition of the property in question on lease and allotment in favour of the appellant, which are not disputed.
DECISION
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the parties, who appeared through Video Conferencing. I have gone through the record of the present appeal.
8. The impugned order is purportedly passed under Section 3B of the PP Act, which has been brought on the statute book by the Amending Act 36 of 2019 section 3 (w.e.f 15-09-2019, which provides as under:
"Eviction from residential accommodation.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 or section 5, if the estate officer has information that any person, who was granted residential accommodation occupation, is in unauthorised occupation of the said residential accommodation, he shall--
(a) forthwith issue notice in writing calling upon such person to show cause within a period of three working days why an order of eviction should not be made;
(b) cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the said residential accommodation, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been served upon such person.
(2) The Estate officer shall, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the person on whom the notice is served under sub-
section (1) and after making such inquiry as it deems expedient Page 6 of 10 in the circumstances of the case, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order of eviction of such person.
(3) If the person in unauthorised occupation refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction referred to in sub-section (2), the estate officer may evict such person from the residential accommodation and take possession thereof and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary."
9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that section 3B of the PP Act has an over riding effect over Section 4 & 5 of the PP Act and it provides for an expeditious remedy wherever a person has been granted 'residential accommodation' and his occupation of the premises becomes unauthorized. Mr. Rajeev Rajan, Ld. Counsel for the appellant vociferously agitated that his client entered into a separate lease agreement with the owners / landlords of the premises in question but he failed to place any such document on the record or even any written acknowledgment from the owners / landlords of the premises to acknowledge him as an independent tenant de hor the respondent no. 1 P & S Bank.
10. Further, Ld counsel for the appellant had no answer to the plea by Mr. Rajat Arora ld counsel for respondent no. 1 that the lease of the premises was obtained by the respondent no. 1 bank in terms of agreement dated 1st December, 2016 for a period of three years w.e.f. 01.12.2016 to 30.11.2019. It is own admission of the appellant that right from the time he came to occupy premises in question, a sum of Rs.6,200/- per month was being deducted from his salary while a sum of Rs. 10,800/- per month towards House Rent Allowance or Page 7 of 10 reimbursement of residential accommodation as his perk applicable to the appellant, being Scale -II category officer, was withheld and instead the total rent of Rs. 17,000/- per month was being paid directly by the P&S Bank to the owner/landlady Mrs. Mohini Sharma in her account. Although no copy of the lease agreement executed between respondent NO.1 Bank and the landlady is filed on the record, assuming that no registered lease deed was executed, the appellant cannot claim any advantage out of it as he availed the benefits under the disposition between the Bank and the owner/landlady, and thus estopped from challenging illegality of the contract.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant was provided the accommodation w.e.f. 01.12.2016 vide letter dated 30.11.2016. Further, the appellant acknowledged the fact that he was provided residential accommodation by the bank vide letter dated 01.12.2016 which is Annexure 'F' in the reply/documents filed by respondent no. 1, in which inter alia the appellant acknowledged the following facts vide paragraphs no. 1, 2 and 7 which are as under:
1. I hereby solemnly agree, declare and undertake to vacate the aforesaid residential accommodation on expiry of the lease period or on ceasing to be in service of employment of the bank for any reason whatsoever or on my transfer to another place or being asked to vacate the premises by the Bank at its absolute discretion.
2. I also hereby agree, declare and undertake that I will never at any time claim to be a tenant of the said premises and consequently claim or attempt to claim protection of the Rent Control Act or any other legislation now or hereinafter to be enacted giving protection to tenants or occupants of premises against eviction or ejection. All the tenancy right shall vest within the bank.
7. I also hereby agree and declare that I shall vacate the Page 8 of 10 premises on the expiry of the lease period or earlier in case Bank authorities ask me to vacate the premises. In the event of non-compliance of the above order for eviction shall be treated as misconduct as defined in Bank's Services rules and shall also be liable for disciplinary proceedings and penalties prescribed as major penalties for misconduct. "
12. In other words, the appellant acknowledged that he would not raise any independent claim of being a tenant in respect of the premises in question and undertook to vacate the premises as and when called upon to vacate the same. It is further shown by the respondent no. 1 that such fact of providing accommodation to the appellant was intimated to the owner/landlady Mrs Mohini Sharma vide letter dated 29th March, 2017. It is admitted fact that the lease of the premises has since been expired and despite service of several notices, the last being dated 20.05.2020 by the respondent no. 1 bank, the appellant failed to vacate the premises and consequently was served with the notice u/s 3 B (i) of the PP Act dated 27.08.2020 which he failed to reply. During the interregnum a sum of Rs. 85,000/- became outstanding towards the arrears of rent w.e.f July 2019 to November, 2019 and vide letter dated 15th January, 2020, the said was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the appellant in three equal monthly installments from the month of January, 2020.
13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, reverting to the impugned order dated 31.08.2020, a fortiori it was not incumbent upon the Estate Officer to assign any detailed reasons, which nonetheless are apparent from the face of record. The appellant is an "unauthorized Page 9 of 10 occupant" in as much as vide Section 2 (g) of the PP Act he continues to occupy the premises after the grant by which he was allowed to occupy and use the premises came to be determined by efflux of time.
14. The ld. Counsel for the appellant then placed on record a Resolution No. 21013/1/2000. Pol.1, dated 20th May, 2002 published in Gazette of India, Part I, Sec.1, dated 8 th June 2002 providing for guidelines to prevent "arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenant from public premises under the Control of Public Sector undertakings / financial institutions". I am afraid that such circular has no value when it comes to application of the new Section 3B of the PP Act brought on the statue book. The appellant has no legal right to continue to occupy the premises in question.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is devoid of any merits in law and same is dismissed and the impugned order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 Ld. Estate Officer is sustained. The appellant is directed to comply with the said order within seven days from today. A signed copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the Website immediately. The parties shall be at liberty to access the same from the official Website delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
16. Record the Ld. Estate Officer along-with copy of this Judgment be sent back forthwith. The file of appeal be consigned to the Record Room. DHARMESH Digitally signed by DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.10.20 19:01:57 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) th on 20 October, 2020 Principal District & Sessions Judge(West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Page 10 of 10